From the early 1960s until his death, French philosopher Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995) wrote many influential works on philosophy, literature, film, and fine art. One of Deleuze's main philosophical projects was a systematic inversion of the traditional relationship between identity and difference. This Deleuzian philosophy of difference is the subject of Jeffrey A. Bell's Philos...
From the early 1960s until his death, French philosopher Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995) wrote many influential works on philosophy, literature, film, and fine art. One of Deleuze's main philosophical projects was a systematic inversion of the traditional relationship between identity and difference. This Deleuzian philosophy of difference is the subject of Jeffrey A. Bell's Philosophy at the Edge of Chaos. Bell argues that Deleuze's efforts to develop a philosophy of difference are best understood by exploring both Deleuze's claim to be a Spinozist, and Nietzsche's claim to have found in Spinoza an important precursor. Beginning with an analysis of these claims, Bell shows how Deleuze extends and transforms concepts at work in Spinoza and Nietzsche to produce a philosophy of difference that promotes and, in fact, exemplifies the notions of dynamic systems and complexity theory. With these concepts at work, Deleuze constructs a philosophical approach that avoids many of the difficulties that linger in other attempts to think about difference. Bell uses close readings of Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, and Whitehead to illustrate how Deleuze's philosophy is successful in this regard and to demonstrate the importance of the historical tradition for Deleuze. Far from being a philosopher who turns his back on what is taken to be a mistaken metaphysical tradition, Bell argues that Deleuze is best understood as a thinker who endeavoured to continue the work of traditional metaphysics and philosophy.
It is this understanding of will to power which leads Heidegger to criticize Nietzsche as yet another metaphysician who fails to think an Being. By making the supreme will to power that function which pre-serves and shapes Becoming such that it is, Nietzsche thus thinks being as a whole not as presencing, as Being, but as presence, as what is (being). When Nietzsche claims, then, that ‘the world viewed from inside, the world defined and determined according to its “intelligible character” – it would be “will to power” and nothing else,’Nietzsche continues to adhere to the metaphysical tradition which thinks Being as being and as a whole, or Being as presencing has been en-framed,boxed in, contained and preserved as the presence of being and that which is, that which has been stamped with ... (查看原文)
An obvious target of such a deconstructive reading is the system of Hegel. Hegel’s system, as we saw, involved the coming to self-presence of the Notion, or what Hegel called the ‘self-comprehending pure Notion.’ In his reading of Hegel, therefore, Derrida would argue that there is a pure difference or trace which allows for the possibility of Hegel’s system, though a difference which renders impossible the successful completion of this system. Differance forever exceeds system,or is the condition for system that cannot be identified with system:‘differance ... cannot, as the condition of all linguistic systems, form a part of the linguistic system itself and be situated as an object in its field.’ And with this claim we see, finally, the manner in which we can begin to understand our earl... (查看原文)
我只信仰善于舞蹈的神明，——狂舞之星。‘one must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star,’ yet this creative birth can result, not in a ‘dancing star,’ but in a collapse into a‘black hole’ of for...我只信仰善于舞蹈的神明，——狂舞之星。‘one must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star,’ yet this creative birth can result, not in a ‘dancing star,’ but in a collapse into a‘black hole’ of forever repeating the same, or an explosion into a fiery‘supernova’ of madness.(展开)
2 有用 我魔法少女呢 2021-05-03 23:28:22
完全赞同作者的想法 比如对于PoC的论述 对于paradoxa和nonsense 怀特海的混沌化 以及DR和叶尔姆斯列夫之间的关系之间的问题 我都完全赞同 但我仍然像提出几个问题：（不完全 只是读完有的 应该还有很多问题）1.PoC和PoI的关系问题 这本书只论述了PoC的必要性却没有论述PoI 我们从加塔利那得知这两者是截然不同的 2.concrete machine 和abstract mac... 完全赞同作者的想法 比如对于PoC的论述 对于paradoxa和nonsense 怀特海的混沌化 以及DR和叶尔姆斯列夫之间的关系之间的问题 我都完全赞同 但我仍然像提出几个问题：（不完全 只是读完有的 应该还有很多问题）1.PoC和PoI的关系问题 这本书只论述了PoC的必要性却没有论述PoI 我们从加塔利那得知这两者是截然不同的 2.concrete machine 和abstract machine的问题i这是否也能放入作者所坚持的double bind中解决呢？（就想到这么多 应该还有很多 (展开)
0 有用 非行少女神乃襞 2021-04-24 15:40:17
见长评
1 有用 碎虹蝶歌 2021-09-18 21:37:01
我只信仰善于舞蹈的神明，——狂舞之星。‘one must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star,’ yet this creative birth can result, not in a ‘dancing star,’ but in a collapse into a‘black hole’ of for... 我只信仰善于舞蹈的神明，——狂舞之星。‘one must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star,’ yet this creative birth can result, not in a ‘dancing star,’ but in a collapse into a‘black hole’ of forever repeating the same, or an explosion into a fiery‘supernova’ of madness. (展开)
0 有用 养鸡场客卿 2025-10-03 05:09:11 美国
比较圆熟的德勒兹–科学讨论